Clinical and Procedural Outcomes with or without Balloon Guide Catheters during Endovascular Thrombectomy in Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis with First-line Technique Subgroup Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Balloon guide catheters are increasingly used to improve clot retrieval by temporarily stopping proximal blood flow during endovascular thrombectomy. PURPOSE: Our aim was to provide a summary of the literature comparing the procedural and clinical outcomes of endovascular thrombectomy with or without balloon guide catheters, depending on the first-line technique used. DATA SOURCES: We used PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. STUDY SELECTION: We chose studies that compared using balloon guide catheters with not using them. DATA ANALYSIS: Random effects meta-analysis was performed to compare the procedural outcomes measured as the first-pass effect, successful reperfusion, number of passes, procedural duration, arterial puncture to reperfusion time, distal emboli, and clinical outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: Overall, a meta-analysis of 16 studies (5507 patients, 50.8% treated with balloon guide catheters and 49.2% without them) shows that the use of balloon guide catheters increases the odds of achieving a first-pass effect (OR = 1.92; 95% CI, 1.34–2.76; P < .001), successful reperfusion (OR = 1.85; 95% CI, 1.42–2.40; P < .001), and good functional outcome (OR =1.48; 95% CI, 1.27–1.73; P < .001). Balloon guide catheters reduce the number of passes (mean difference = −0.35; 95% CI, −0.65 to −0.04; P = .02), procedural time (mean difference = −19.73; 95% CI, −34.63 to −4.83; P = .009), incidence of distal or new territory emboli (OR = 0.5; 95% CI, 0.26–0.98; P = .04), and mortality (OR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.62–0.85; P < .001). Similar benefits of balloon guide catheters are observed when the first-line technique was a stent retriever or contact aspiration, but not for a combined approach. LIMITATIONS: The analysis was based on nonrandomized trials with a moderate risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Current literature suggests improved clinical and procedural outcomes associated with the use of balloon guide catheters during endovascular thrombectomy, especially when using the first-line stent retriever.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.060 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".